Care Integration Within and Outside Health System Boundaries

Published in: Health Services Research, Volume 55, Issue S3, Special Issue: Comparative Health System Performance, pages 1033–1048 (December 2020). doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13578

Posted on RAND.org on December 10, 2020

by Sara J. Singer, Anna D. Sinaiko, Maike V. Tietschert, Michaela J. Kerrissey, Russell S. Phillips, Veronique Martin, Grace Joseph, Hassina Bahadurzada, Denis Agniel

Read More

Access further information on this document at Health Services Research

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Objective

Examine care integration—efforts to unify disparate parts of health care organizations to generate synergy across activities occurring within and between them—to understand whether and at which organizational level health systems impact care quality and staff experience.

Data Sources

Surveys administered to one practice manager (56/59) and up to 26 staff (828/1360) in 59 practice sites within 24 physician organizations within 17 health systems in four states (2017–2019).

Study Design

We developed manager and staff surveys to collect data on organizational, social, and clinical process integration, at four organizational levels: practice site, physician organization, health system, and outside health systems. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and regression.

Principal Findings

Managers and staff perceived opportunity for improvement across most types of care integration and organizational levels. Managers/staff perceived little variation in care integration across health systems. They perceived better care integration within practice sites than within physician organizations, health systems, and outside health systems—up to 38 percentage points (pp) lower (P < .001) outside health systems compared to within practice sites. Of nine clinical process integration measures, one standard deviation (SD) (7.2-pp) increase in use of evidence-based care related to 6.4-pp and 8.9-pp increases in perceived quality of care by practice sites and health systems, respectively, and a 4.5-pp increase in staff job satisfaction; one SD (9.7-pp) increase in integration of social services and community resources related to a 7.0-pp increase in perceived quality of care by health systems; one SD (6.9-pp) increase in patient engagement related to a 6.4-pp increase in job satisfaction and a 4.6-pp decrease in burnout; and one SD (10.6-pp) increase in integration of diabetic eye examinations related to a 5.5-pp increase in job satisfaction (all P < .05).

Conclusions

Measures of clinical process integration related to higher staff ratings of quality and experience. Action is needed to improve care integration within and outside health systems.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.